lie detectors?

Question

do lie detectors really exist? if they do then do they work and could they tell if a person is lying? how much do they cost?

Answer 1

A polygraph (informally referred to as a "lie detector") is a device which measures and records several physiological variables such as blood pressure, heart rate, respiration and skin conductivity while a series of questions are being asked, in an attempt to detect lies. The above measurements are posited to be indicators of anxiety that accompanies the telling of lies. Thus, measured anxiety is equated with telling untruths. However, if the subject exhibits anxiety for other reasons, a measured response can result in unreliable conclusions.

A polygraph test is also known as a psychophysiological detection of deception (PDD) examination. The original polygraph was invented by John A. Larson.

A typical polygraph starts with a pre-test interview designed to establish a connection (or find a scientific control) between the tester and the testee and to gain some preliminary information which will later be used for "Control Questions " or C (see below). Then the tester will explain the polygraph, emphasizing that it can detect lies and that it is important to answer truthfully. Then a "stim test" is often conducted: the testee is asked to deliberately lie and then the tester reports that he was able to detect this lie. Then the actual test starts. Some of the questions asked are "Irrelevant " or IR ("Are you 35 years old?"), others are "probable-lie" Control Questions that most people will lie about ("Have you ever stolen money?") and the remainder are the "Relevant Questions " or R the polygrapher is really interested in. The different types of questions alternate. The test is passed if the physiological responses during the probable-lie control questions are larger than those during the relevant questions. If this is not the case, the tester attempts to elicit admissions during a post-test interview ("Your situation will only get worse if we don't clear this up"). These admissions are the main goal of the test.

While some people believe that polygraph tests are reliable, there is little scientific evidence to buttress this claim. For example, while some claim the test to be accurate in 70% - 90% of the cases, critics charge that rather than a "test", the method amounts to an inherently unstandardizable interrogation technique whose accuracy cannot be established. Critics also argue that even given high estimates of the polygraph's accuracy a significant number of subjects (e.g. 10% given a 90% accuracy) will appear to be lying, and would unfairly suffer the consequences of "failing" the polygraph. It is interesting to note that, so far, no scientific study has been published that offers convincing evidence of the validity of the polygraph test. Polygraph tests have also been criticized for failing to trap known spies such as Aldrich Ames, who passed three polygraph tests while spying for the Russian government.

Several countermeasures designed to pass polygraph tests have been described, the most important of which is never to make any damaging admissions. Additionally, several techniques can be used to increase the physiological response during control questions. In an interview, Ames was asked how he passed the polygraph test. His response was that when told he was to be polygraphed he asked his Soviet handlers what to do, and was quite surprised that their advice was simply to relax when being asked questions, which he did.

The polygraph machine was tested for the first time on February 2, 1935 when Leonard Keeler conducted the experiment in Portage, Wisconsin. They were often used by employers in an attempt to screen out dishonest job applicants, but this practice was outlawed for most private employers in the US in 1988. Some US Federal Government agencies, most notably, the CIA, still apply routine lie detector tests to screen all employees despite the extreme damage that the CIA's reliance on the polygraph in the Ames case did to national security.

While lie detector tests are commonly used in police investigations in the US, no defendant or witness can be forced to undergo the test. In United States v. Scheffer (1998) [1], the US Supreme Court left it up to individual jurisdictions whether polygraph results could be admitted as evidence in court cases.

In most European jurisdictions, polygraphs are not considered reliable evidence and are not generally used by police forces. However, in any lawsuit, an involved party can order a psychologist to write an opinion based on polygraph results to substantiate the credibility of its claims. The party must bear the expense themselves, and the court weighs the opinion like any other opinion the party has ordered. Courts themselves do not order nor pay for polygraph tests. An example of this practice would be a rape trial in which the defendant tries to fortify his testimony by submitting himself to a polygraph session.

In Canada, the use of a polygraph is sometimes employed in screening employees for government organizations. However, in the 1987 decision of R. v. Béland, the Supreme Court of Canada rejected the use of polygraph results as evidence in court.

According to antipolygraph.org, a web site skeptical about the polygraph, the polygraph was used at a state facility attached to the Joliet Correctional Center to help decide whether to free offenders [2].

A related technique called the bogus pipeline involves connecting a person to a non-functioning polygraph (or other sophisticated looking device), and convincing him or her that the device can detect deception. One example might be a metal colander placed on the subject's head, with non-functional wires leading to a Xerox photocopier. When a lie is suspected, the copy button could be pushed - thus spitting out a piece of paper with the words "LIE DETECTED". There have not been any confirmed examples of this actually being used by a police department (although it was depicted in the TV series Homicide1).

Studies have shown that, compared to control conditions, individuals connected to a bogus pipeline, who believe the pipeline is able to detect lies, are more likely to provide truthful responses2. If the subject is aware of the bogus nature of the pipeline, the test is useless.

Similar techniques were used in the ancient times. For instance, in West Africa persons suspected of a crime were made to pass a bird's egg to one another. If a person broke the egg, then he or she was considered guilty. In Ancient China, during a prosecutor's speech the suspect held a handful of rice in his or her mouth. Since salivation was believed to cease at times of emotional anxiety, the person was considered guilty if by the end of that speech the rice remained dry.

Answer 2

Yes they exist. No they are not for sale to the general public. The accuracy rate is approximately 80%. The largest variable is that the results often are considerably vague. The person giving the test is interpreting the results to each question. The machine does its job by graphing the body's response, and the examiner then factors his/her educated opinion between whether or not the "testee" is responding with truthful or untruthful answers. Therefore, unless you have a very skilled lie detector examiner...(and there are few) , results vary to much to be reliable. The results are not 100 % accurate..and thus are not considered to be an end all to someones innocence or guilt in a court of law.

Answer 3

Hahahahaha 10/10

Answer 4

1.They exist.
2.They don't always work because serial killers can lie so good that the lie detectors don't catch them and that is why it is not use in court.
3.Don't know how you can get them but maybe try eBay.com they seem to have everything.

Answer 5

Yes, they exist. Yes, they work. No idea how much they cost. And fun fact, you can beat them by putting a tack in your shoe, and pressing on it with your toe when you answer. Changes your heart rate. Also, put a deodorant on your fingertips, one that does not smell.

Answer 6

Yes, they do exist. They usually aren't for sale to the general public. Your own inner instinct probably works better.

Answer 7

well, can a machine be right 100% of the time? heck no. people's emotions are so complex! btw..HI babe!!! tthanks for the best answer. love the points! make more questions too so i can answer em. hehe.

Answer 8

yes they exist
no they do not work very well
they are not admissible as evidence in a court of law

Answer 9

yes

Answer 10

They are not reliable.